Search

• We examined neural responses to sentences with double violations. • Objects were incongruent on lexico-semantic grounds, as well as referential interpretation. • A P200-N400 effect was observed (not a P600 effect, as expected). • ERP effects confirm that semantic anomaly can be derived from independent sources. A key aspect of linguistic communication involves semantic reference to objects. Presently, we investigate neural responses at objects when reference is disrupted, e.g., "The connoisseur tasted *that wine "... vs. " ...* that roof ..." Without any previous linguistic context or visual gesture, use of the demonstrative determiner "that" renders interpretation at the noun as incoherent. This incoherence is not based on knowledge of how the world plausibly works but instead is based on grammatical rules of reference. Whereas Event-Related Potential (ERP) responses to sentences such as "The connoisseur tasted the wine ..." vs. "the roof " would result in an N400 effect, it is unclear what to expect for doubly incoherent " ...* that roof ...". Results revealed an N400 effect, as expected, preceded by a P200 component (instead of predicted P600 effect). These independent ERP components at the doubly violated condition support the notion that semantic interpretation can be partitioned into grammatical vs. contextual constructs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Drawings can represent both Literal and Non-Literal referents. • Six-year-olds provide literal and non-literal labels for the same picture, showing flexibility. • Six-year-olds endorse non-literal meanings when these are triggered first. • Four-year-olds were rigid in their literal interpretations when verbally questioned. • When a game format was used, both age groups showed representational flexibility. Pictures can represent more than one entity, and they can also represent literal or nonliteral concepts associated with a referent. In two studies, we examined whether 4-year-olds, 6-year-olds, and adults can view pictures as both literal and nonliteral when they are presented with different contextual cues, which would indicate representational flexibility. In Study 1, children and adults were asked to name iconic pictures after hearing a story explaining how a fictional character had created or used a picture in, for instance, a literal context (e.g., a girl used a picture of a crown to represent what she wanted for Christmas) and a second story on how the same artist produced or used an identical picture in a nonliteral context (e.g., the same girl used the picture of a crown to represent what she wanted to be when she grew up). After each story, the picture was shown and participants were asked "What does this mean?" The 6-year-olds and adults, but not the 4-year-olds, showed representational flexibility in their interpretations of pictures across contexts. Study 2 provided evidence of flexible pictorial interpretations, even for the younger age group, when children were presented with a game in which they were asked to select a suitable picture to represent a nonliteral referent. Taken together, our results suggest that the conditions under which representational flexibility is elicited influence the developmental progression observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]